M/S.Bright Asset Transit PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit previously granted in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court directed that the petitioner's case be treated on the same terms as laid out in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre order. This implies that the petitioner would be required to file all pending returns prior to cancellation, pay the defaulted tax along with interest, and any applicable fine or fee. Input Tax Credit (ITC) could not be used for these payments and would require scrutiny and approval by the competent authority before utilization for future tax liabilities. The registration would stand revived upon compliance. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Bright Asset Transit Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Kuzhithurai, cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the cancellation due to a medical condition (hernia) requiring bed rest for several months, during which business operations were managed by staff and statutory compliances by a part-time accountant. This prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, should be revoked given the circumstances of medical incapacitation and lack of awareness. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their failure to file returns was unintentional and due to medical reasons, leading to a lack of awareness about the cancellation. They relied on a batch of writ petitions in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, dated 31.01.2022, where similar directions were issued to allow revival of registration under specific conditions. They also cited other consistent decisions of the Court following the Suguna Cutpiece case. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the appellate authority cannot pass orders disregarding prescribed limitations, implying that the petitioner's appeal was rightly rejected as it was beyond the period of limitation. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the respondent.